Report: DRM decisions on next Xbox will be left to publishers

Rumors point to easy video sharing, new Achievements system.

In the run-up to Microsoft's official "new Xbox" unveiling next month, the one major rumor that refuses to go away is that the system will sport some sort of requirement to be logged in through an Internet connection in order to be used. A new insider report today confirms those rumors somewhat but also suggests that the Internet-connected DRM might not be as stringent as some had feared.

Polygon cites unnamed sources in reporting that the next Xbox will indeed support an Internet requirement, but publishers will be able to decide how it is used with regard to DRM on a per-game basis. According to the report, current Microsoft guidelines will allow publishers to choose between requiring a constant Internet connection, performing a one-time check when the game starts up, or simply not implementing any Internet-based DRM at all.

If this came to pass, the new Xbox wouldn't be all that different from the PC in terms of software DRM, with some games featuring overbearing online checks and others released without. It's unclear whether or not Microsoft itself would require an Internet check for its own games or for any traditionally offline functions of the system itself.

The new report also suggests that Microsoft is working on a system-wide ability to capture video footage of gameplay and share it easily through sites like Facebook and Ustream. This sounds like it would closely mimic the similar sharing features already announced for Sony's PlayStation 4 by automatically recording play and allowing players to pick sharable moments after the fact. The new Xbox may also be able to automatically highlight "magic moments" like headshots and Achievements, according to the report.

Speaking of Achievements, the report suggests that developers will be able to add new Achievements to games after launch without requiring the player to explicitly purchase or download new DLC. These post-launch Achievements could be used to encourage different player behavior if the developer notices new play patterns emerging, for instance, or they could be tied to one-time-only temporal events. There could also be Achievements tied to completing events in two separate games or across platforms.

Finally, the report suggests that Xbox Live on the new system will do away with the current friends limit and allow for "one way" friendships that act more like the "follow" feature on social networks like Twitter.

I'm sure MS has been under great pressure from the large publishers to improve their bottom line. This solution, while I'm sure will garner many complains about MS, pushes back the iron grip to the publishers.

I'm sure MS has been under great pressure from the large publishers to improve their bottom line. This solution, while I'm sure will garner many complains about MS, pushes back the iron grip to the publishers.

You can't really blame Microsoft if they do play ball with these publishers ( speaking of the likes of EA ). They also have to hedge their bets on the fact that Sony might or might not also play ball. Sony and Microsoft both might be talking because piracy on either platform hurts them both, since if a publisher goes out of business with a good IP that makes them money ( there was a recent case of this hapening in the last 3 months ), they are left with less blockbusters.

How I see is that in 3-4 years 90% of gamers will have internet good enough for this not to even matter. If this rumor is true, they are putting their money where their mouth is, and saying the current percentage is close enough even today.

If you listen closely, that clickety sound in the distance is the sound of zillions of keyboards at Microsoft furiously racing to jury-rig a "no online requirement, really, we swear... sorta" facade for the new XBox. I bet the final policy will be something bogus like a technically "no online requirement" that will be effectively an "online requirement". It'll be something like "no you don't need to be online at all!... unless you want to save your game or (mutter mutter...)"

I'm sure MS has been under great pressure from the large publishers to improve their bottom line. This solution, while I'm sure will garner many complains about MS, pushes back the iron grip to the publishers.

I don't see why. None of the publishers have the leverage to really push hard on MS, especially when it's been such a powerful and profitable console for the major publishers that aren't tied to Nintendo. While they naturally work with the publishers, none of the big leagues are worried about making money on the next-gen console form MS.

I'm sure MS has been under great pressure from the large publishers to improve their bottom line. This solution, while I'm sure will garner many complains about MS, pushes back the iron grip to the publishers.

I don't see why. None of the publishers have the leverage to really push hard on MS, especially when it's been such a powerful and profitable console for the major publishers that aren't tied to Nintendo. While they naturally work with the publishers, none of the big leagues are worried about making money on the next-gen console form MS.

Any game console lives and dies by its developer support. No single dev may have the leverage to dictate to Microsoft, but even a handful of the bigger ones certainly do.

Great...so now I'll have to take DRM into consideration when purchasing console games just like I now have to when purchasing PC games. Think I'll skip this next generation of consoles and spend that money on a new video card instead.

With the game publishing industry like it is now all games are going to require the always on DRM. Do you think EA and Activision won't use this feature if they can? They already do with all their PC games.

Great, more ways to screw the user. This way MS can get people to buy the console because it "doesn't have an always-online requirement." Then after people have invested $400-$500 into it, the publishers put out all their games - or at least all their biggest, most popular games - with always-online requirements turned on.

The people who bought the console are screwed either way: the console becomes a $400 paperweight or give up all their rights and eat the shit publishers are pushing.

If you buy one of these consoles and then you buy games which require an "always connected" state in order to play--then you're tacitly agreeing with the type of DRM implemented. Best simply not to buy such software--if enough people refuse to buy the game the publisher will change things--I'm glad to say. IIRC, there was a game for the PC not too long ago in which that exact scenario ensued--and the publisher changed things in order to boost sales. Unfortunately, I can't recall the name of the game or where I read about it...

So in a worst-case scenario, MS is asking me to buy a $60 (or higher) disk with publisher-mandated one-time install piece of critical content, with always-on DRM. That limits the long-term viability of the product (trading/selling/classic gaming in 20 years is on lockdown.)

Yeah... I'm sure Activision, EA and Ubisoft will do the right thing.

There's no need to make that gaming more convenient or reduce the price per title!

Whew, it's good to hear this because we all know publishers always take the logical step instead of jumping onto the draconian DRM bandwagon when given a chance, right?

In the 'honestly, I really want these guys to bleed some red for being so customer hostile' sense, this is fantastic news...

If there is anything more costly(in terms of lost customers, upset customers, returns, angry ranting, etc.) than being abusive, it's being confusing.<br><br>

If Microsoft said, out of the gate, "Yup, 100% online, all the time, suck it down." the people who didn't like that, or didn't have internet access good enough for it, would walk away; but the experience for everybody else would be entirely predictable, excepting only XBL outages(which have been relatively rare, so far).

Now, though, every single individual game(possibly even every single individual SKU, no reason that the release-date copy couldn't have stricter DRM than the 'game-of-the-year' or 'gold-edition' compilation sold after all the full-price and preorder hype has died down) will potentially have a different set of requirements, probably printed in three point flyspeck sans-serif or masked behind an opaque marketing term. Stand back and watch confused relatives make the wrong choice in droves this holiday season!

Is piracy on consoles even that bad? I don't even know anyone with a modded PS3 or 360. Xbox is another story, but that was mostly for XBMC even.

Above every resold game disk flies the jolly roger! Just as every torrented .iso rip of a PC game is 100% equivalent to an unsold full-retail-price purchase, every used game is equivalent to $59.99 being torn directly from the hungry mouth's of a hardworking developer's children. Or, um, something.

If you buy one of these consoles and then you buy games which require an "always connected" state in order to play--then you're tacitly agreeing with the type of DRM implemented. Best simply not to buy such software--if enough people refuse to buy the game the publisher will change things--I'm glad to say. IIRC, there was a game for the PC not too long ago in which that exact scenario ensued--and the publisher changed things in order to boost sales. Unfortunately, I can't recall the name of the game or where I read about it...

There are plenty of examples, but Ubisoft had the most egregious example that later got rescinded. They announced an always-on DRM scheme and one of the first titles to launch after that was Silent Hunter 5, a submarine simulation.

The irony that submariners on active duty (along with pretty much every other military gamer) could not play the game was not lost on the public.

Sales and variety of games. Now that I have a PC connected to my TV and a controller, I will gladly buy the PC version of a multi platform game (assuming the graphics requirement are not outrageous) on a Steam Sale than wait for a sale that rarely comes console version. I got Space Marine and all DLC for dirt and its great on the TV and controller. I think I will pick up Assassins Creed next steam sale.

I think I'll take a wait and see stance then. If publishers start dogpiling on crazy DRM, then I won't get one. If they come out with $500 worth of must-have games, without crazy DRM, then maybe I will.

However, they already have DRM on the consoles where you have to physically have the disc in order to play. Somehow, they don't feel this is good enough. Why? Because it doesn't block people from doing legal things with their games, like lend them to friends or resell them for pennies on the dollar. They want to add DRM that stops you from doing things they don't like, not to stop you from doing illegal things.

Microsoft is colluding with this viewpoint and giving them the means to do this, but claiming to be totally innocent in the matter. "We aren't forcing them to use the DRM that we provided!"

If I wanted to have to do research on whether Game X had DRM I was comfortable with or not, I'd be buying for the PC. Since, y'know, I'd have the opportunity to apply fixes to that if I didn't like it.

I'll wait for the official word, sure, but "some DRM" may as well be "all DRM" if they're going to be all fuzzy about it.

If this goes through, I'd be curious to see breakdown not just per publisher, or per title, but per market segment.

In addition to the already mentioned markets where always-on is bad policy:- Consumers with no access to the Internet- Consumers with limited/unreliable access/dial-up/high latency satellite (often rural)- Customers who pay a metered Internet charge (wireless broadband based or other) and want to meter their usage very carefully.

The games marketed to children and teens-- basically anything under the ESRB rating of M or PEGI 18 are particularly affected.

It's just easier to set up a system for kids' use in a way such that there's no Internet access. That is just as true for a business that has consoles for kids to use as it is for a parent that wants their daughter or son to have access to an approved list of games.

If the always-on requirement is at least blocked for games rated for younger players, well, that would be interesting...

Microsoft is colluding with this viewpoint and giving them the means to do this, but claiming to be totally innocent in the matter. "We aren't forcing them to use the DRM that we provided!"

But bless Microsoft's pointy little head, they still want to push a specific set of price points for games.

I can take DRM restrictions on resale into account when pricing reflects that DRM. Asking me to pay a few hundred for the box+controllers+kinect and THEN asking me to pay top dollar for every single game is audacious enough. If they then restrict resale/trade/loaning the disks out via DRM, ensuring that the consumer pays top dollar? Well, I'm not sure I would be that ballsy.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.